[quote="disraeli123"]No one is saying all Muslims, but even the law abiding ones do not speak out against the horrors caused by the extremists. You try to use people like McCain and as usual he actually was in favor of water boarding. Kona this is the bottom line until you have been on a bus that just by luck wasn't blown up please don't lecture me on the rights of terrorists. People who live in a fantasy who have never come close to being killed have very little perspective on what is happening around the world with Muslims.

quote]

Granted. But I was on a bus in Guatemala that was stopped by the Guatemala Army (supported by the US Government) and saw two people executed before the bus was waved on. So don´t think the US can take the high ground. No one can, really.

BBB, As I said before the ISRAELIS can claim the high ground over the Arabs who even today still lob missiles into schools and hospitals even when they know there occupied. On the other hand the Arabs put missiles and artillery right next to hospitals and schools to use children and patients as live shields the act of a COWARD That is why Arab children are hurt in these conflicts the Arabs choose to target children and sick people when they attack Israel while using sick people and children to try and shield themselves so the vunerable get hurt at both ends and please do not get me started on the suicide bombers. So there are people who can claim the high ground and that is, because they are civilized and know the difference between right from wrong unlike other groups who are only taught hatred and envy.

The gangs all here again.............For all of you my ego whether you care or not doesn't bruise so easily, but I am a person who will not allow the memory of my ancestors to be besmirched by lefties who know little or nothing about the MIDDLE EAST. Those International organizations that accuse Israel of human rights violations such as the UN commitee on human rights headed by Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe is really an expert on human rights also Amnesty International who looks away from Syrian problems. This is why your accusations are a JOKE at best.

My father fought in the Pacific and I know about it as well so stop trying to give me instruction.

BBB, As I said before the ISRAELIS can claim the high ground over the Arabs who even today still lob missiles into schools and hospitals even when they know there occupied. On the other hand the Arabs put missiles and artillery right next to hospitals and schools to use children and patients as live shields the act of a COWARD That is why Arab children are hurt in these conflicts the Arabs choose to target children and sick people when they attack Israel while using sick people and children to try and shield themselves so the vunerable get hurt at both ends and please do not get me started on the suicide bombers. So there are people who can claim the high ground and that is, because they are civilized and know the difference between right from wrong unlike other groups who are only taught hatred and envy.

Interesting how your morals shift depending on who the target is. elsewhere on this forum, you blindly defend Reagan's policies and I think it safe to assume you also support Romney's policies which include more support for Syrian rebels.

Reagan as you know actively funded and armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation. A worthy position to take, but of course those were other Afghans that were killed by US weapons, including children in schools and and the sick and dying in hospitals.

I assume you'd look the other way as Syrian rebel suicide bombers now take lives. Romney would also fund and arm these people in what is also a good fight by many measures.

Hello Guy, First I did support the arming of the mujahideen when Reagan did it. For 3 reasons it served to hold down the Soviets in Afgahistan and it help U.S. interests it also promoted freedom from Soviet control. As far as the Syrian civil war you presume much I do not support arming the rebels. As far as I'm concerned as long as the Syrians stay within their border with their civil war it's none of our business. We have to learn to let others fight their own battles unless it affects American interests directly. The Syrian military fired into southern Turkey twice and Turkey returned the fire and the NATO defense ministers met yesterday and sent a direct message to the Syrian government to stop firing into Turkey lets see what happens, if the fight stays within Syria it is none of our business.

Guy you need to read my entries here more closely. We should learn to only use force and arm people when it's in our national interest and it helps advance the cause of freedom, but we can't afford everything. Israel can take care of itself it always has and the Syrian government knows that too that is why no fighting has even come close the the Syrian Israeli border.

BBB, Talk to W.W. 2 veterans who fought in the Pacific. You will find that the overwhelming majority supported the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Because of the suicide Kamikazes and the Japanese soldiers willing to die and take Americans with them at Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The War department gave president Truman an estimate of between 280,000 to 400,000 dead, wounded or missing in a direct attack on the Japanese home islands. These estimates could have been wrong, but no president of any country is going to go for that, if they have an alternative. Truman decided that his responsibility was to end the war as quickly as possible with as little American deaths as possible. Truman took an oath " To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S." His main concern was U.S. lives not the enemies so the bombs were dropped approx. deaths 200,000 was it a good solution no, but given the same circumstances and information available most of the soldiers in the Pacific applauded Truman, because the Japanese surrendered and they lived instead of being killed on the beachs of Honshu. My dad would have been one of those men so I thank G-D that Truman did what he did.

The U.S. didn't start WW2 the U.S. didn't attack and kill over 2,000 people while so called peace negotiations were still going on. The old saying and I quote" If you start something you better be able to finish it." The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor on a Sunday morning no declaration of war you do something like that your likely to get no mercy from your enemy.

Guy, I will not walk one thing I've said about foreign or military policy back it's alright when a country north of mine has had a virtual free ride on America's dime don't get me wrong half my family is from Canada, but they don't have the lefty opinions which is easy to have when you don't have the responsibility to protect over 300 million directly and millions more indirectly. As Michael Douglas said in the movie The American President " How is it questioning things from the cheap seats?" It has always amazed me how people both in Europe and elsewhere who lived under the direct or indirect protection of America's military power can play Monday night quarterback after the fact try the seat yourself or if ineligible just be grateful Uncle Sam was there between 1945 and 1991 the world would have been a lot different without us there. It's easy when you know the umbrella is out, but what would happen, if the umbrella was withdrawn well that might just happen, because the American people are tired of paying and then being told to get lost.

Today is the 66th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945.

Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

By the summer of 1945 Japan was essentially defeated, its navy at the bottom of the ocean; its air force limited by fuel, equipment, and other shortages; its army facing defeat on all fronts; and its cities subjected to bombing that was all but impossible to challenge. With Germany out of the war, the United States and Britain were about to bring their full power to bear on what was left of the Japanese military. Moreover, the Soviet Union—at this point in time still neutral—was getting ready to attack on the Asian mainland: the Red Army, fresh from victory over Hitler, was poised to strike across the Manchurian border.

Long before the bombings occurred in August 1945—indeed, as early as late April 1945, more than three months before Hiroshima—U.S. intelligence advised that the Japanese were likely to surrender when the Soviet Union entered the war if they were assured that it did not imply national annihilation. An April 29 Joint Intelligence Staff document put it this way: “If at any time the U.S.S.R. should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable....”

What?! Canadians without lefty opinions? How have they not been put in a re-education center yet?

Quote:

How is it questioning things from the cheap seats?

Canadians were asking that of their American cousins in both WWI and WWII. While we fought and died on countless foreign shores, your country made money off the combatants. At least the US finally got up a backbone, albeit late to both big shows.

Quote:

just be grateful Uncle Sam was there between 1945 and 1991 the world would have been a lot different without us there

I wonder what the people of Vietnam, Guatemala, Grenada, Chile, and Iraq (prior to 2003) think of that?

Quote:

because the American people are tired of paying and then being told to get lost.

You are saying none of the NATO allies pay into defense? Check your stats.

If you mean non-NATO, then I'd check the stats on what countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia pay into their defense, and where that money goes.

I think you have only a rudimentary understanding of the connections between the military and industry, between politics and business, between war and peace. You clearly do not understand just how big a business defense is, nor its primary role.

Henry, I have been civil and although I could think of a lot of things I could say or call you I know how to be a GENTLEMAN what was done in the 1980's was in the national interest the policy makers couldn't have known Osama bin Laden would emerge. As far as that intelligence paper how long after the war was that produced. George Marshall was in favor of the bomb and so was Secretary of War Stimson so Truman took the advice of his 2 closest military advisers. My father lived till 2006, so I still applaud Truman.

Guy, WW1 until Germany began unrestricted submarine warfare was none of America's business. The allies were lucky we entered when we did in 1918 without fresh American troops the Germans would probably taken Paris . As far as W.W. 2 yes we were late and it probably meant a longer war, but every country has it's internal politics to deal with. As far as after the war look again 75% to 80% depending upon the year is America's contribution to NATO from 1948 to 1991. As a part of the British Empire and commonwealth your country entered WW1 and 2 we had no such obligations although without us the outcomes might have been different. As far as the 3rd world countries I was talking about America being aound with it's power to prevent a Soviet take over in Western Europe after WW2 I wasn't talking about the developing world.

... what was done in the 1980's was in the national interest the policy makers couldn't have known Osama bin Laden would emerge.

But many DID KNOW that a global Muslim fundamentalist movement would undoubtedly arise from U.S. actions. The U.S. was supporting Muslim fundamentalists against a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. What else could have happened? The Kabul regime wanted, for example, education for girls. The fundamentalists didn't. The U.S. enters the scene. Boom! There you go.

But Reagan's administration didn't care. It was purely a U.S./U.S.S.R. issue to them -- damn the local population and the simmering Middle East and Central Asia.

... what was done in the 1980's was in the national interest the policy makers couldn't have known Osama bin Laden would emerge.

But many DID KNOW that a global Muslim fundamentalist movement would undoubtedly arise from U.S. actions. The U.S. was supporting Muslim fundamentalists against a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. What else could have happened? The Kabul regime wanted, for example, education for girls. The fundamentalists didn't. The U.S. enters the scene. Boom! There you go.

But Reagan's administration didn't care. It was purely a U.S./U.S.S.R. issue to them -- damn the local population and the simmering Middle East and Central Asia.

The US supported a lot of questionable leaders during the cold war. That's why the genocides of El Salvador and Guatemala happened. The USSR was even more complicet in these acts. There may have been no direct confrontation between the US and the USSR, but a hell of a lot of people did die from it.

If anyone wants to switch gears on the debate here, here's an article that probably most accurately reflects my views on the current global financial crisis. http://www.economist.com/node/21564556